On 11/10/21 14:29, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
On 09.11.2021 20:46, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/9/21 08:23, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
Ping ping!
Looks good, but can you explain why it's okay to call it before
qemu_chr_cleanup() and user_creatable_cleanup()?
I think a better solution to the
On 09.11.2021 20:46, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/9/21 08:23, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
Ping ping!
Looks good, but can you explain why it's okay to call it before
qemu_chr_cleanup() and user_creatable_cleanup()?
I think a better solution to the ordering problem would be:
On 11/9/21 08:23, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
Ping ping!
Looks good, but can you explain why it's okay to call it before
qemu_chr_cleanup() and user_creatable_cleanup()?
I think a better solution to the ordering problem would be:
qemu_chr_cleanup();
user_creatable_cleanup();
flush_rcu();
Ping ping!
On 02.11.2021 16:39, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
The device destruction may superimpose over qemu shutdown.
In this case some management layer, requested a device unplug and
waiting for DEVICE_DELETED event, may never get this event.
This happens because device_finalize() may never be
